Menu
▾
▴
#116 Copyright Attribute for Objects (Pics, Movies)
Open Content Requirement - urgent in order to submit eLessons to open content plattforms such as LOR (SWITCH)
Attribute for objects in which object specific rights can be determined. If the owner/author of an object is not the owner/author of the course, the object can be automatically replaced by a textalternative such as "this picture cannot be published under an open content licence".
This feature allows authors to publish their content under an open content licence even if he or she uses scanned objects from books.
The simple fact that many authors use objects by scanning them from books or download them from the web cause that the course as a whole cannot be published unter open content licenses such as creative commons licenses.
I like this - but how to implement it?
I would propose to add a new element copyright (either at content level (e.g. beside multimedia) or in the metadata at the end of a lesson) which allows to define all needed infos (either as attributes or as subelements). This new element copyright is then related to the multimedia object etc. via the labelRef attribute. This allows to add copyright information to any labeled element of a lesson and does not overload the multimedia element with additional attributes that not everone needs.
Any thoughts on this?
I think of implementing it related to the multimedia object with an predefined setting as copyright under the same authorship as the course, so that any user/author can change the value if necessary
Sorry, I don't understand your suggestion. Can you please explain with little more detail (what elements/attributes are to be added where) what you mean. Thanks.
I still think that the solution I proposed below wouldn't be too bad. But we still need to decide where to implement the new copyright element - beside the multimedia element or rather in a special section/metadata section of the lesson.
Although your labelRef-solution is quite elegant I think that it is too complicated to be implemented (also within Firedocs??). So we should stay with the attribute solution. The question is:
1. Which element need a copyright attribute? Only multimedia?
2. What is the content allowed? Plain Text or a set of values?
3. Do we include this in the transformation scenarios? E.g. a parameter in the config.xml that allows a user to transform a lesson with only the non-copyright protected images? If yes, what happens with the other images? Some kind of warning text displayed?
My answers:
1. For the moment I would say only the multimedia element needs this attribute.
2. We should stick with Creative Commons and use their 6 licenses:
by
by-sa
by-nd
by-nc
by-nc-sa
by-nc-nd
See http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
So this way an author can define anything from totally open to very restricted. As a 7th point we would need something like "protected" which means that the element cannot be reused at all (only for teaching, within class). Does this make sense?
3. We could include this into the transformation process and give the possibility to the user to create a version of a lesson that can be published under creative commons license XY...
Please add your comments...
Joels questions
1. Which element need a copyright attribute? Only multimedia?
2. What is the content allowed? Plain Text or a set of values?
3. Do we include this in the transformation scenarios?
Answers
1. all objects/elements like pics and movies
many authors use scanned pics from books which makes the publication under an open content licence impossible
2. the attribute should be such as "falls under the same conditions as text/course" or "doesn't fall ..."
the licence model cc licenses should be another attribute dependet upon the first since it is a first decision of an author to declare if the object falls under the same licence/authorship as the text and a second what licens model it is.
3. that would be wonderful - in every publishing process the first attribute determines if and how the object will be displayed.
therefore we need a third attribute with a alternative text as the representation of the object for open publications. this is a necessary attribute for all objects which "doesn't fall ..."
Three more attributes for the multimedia element... I don't like the idea. This is much to heavy.
> Three more attributes for the multimedia element... I don't like the idea.
> This is much to heavy.
Maybe I made the mistake to be too specific what the number attributes concerns. So this is what is necessary from a user's perspective:
The XML Schema should contain the following information for every object (pic and multimedia)
1. Is its copyright information identic with the copyright informaton of the whole course/lesson?
- this information is preset to "yes" - if an author has reason to change it he or she can do so
2. If the copyright information for an object is not identic with the copyright informaton of the whole course/lesson then this should be specified.
- these values should be be at least all models of creative commons licences and one value for objects which are not published in the public domain
- of course 1. and 2. can be the same attribute if you like it that way
3. For every object that must be prevented from publication due to copyright restrictions an alternative text must represent the object. This text can be a preset dependent on the language information/metadata and on the copyleft information - or a free text defined by the author.
- make it a preset dependent on the language and on the copyleft/copyright information if you want to diminish the number of attributes
you see, Joel, I don't want to implement three attributes but three "information values" in whatever way the developpers will find out
sorry for not having been precise enough
oops, it was susanne not joel who opposed to the idea of three atttributes
I'd really like to have this information specified in the metadata section (where the general copyright statement already is). There we can add as many elements and attributes as needed. The reference to the specific elements within the lesson would be made via a label reference - meaning each multimedia object gets a unique label (this attribute is already available for most of the elements) and in the metadata section I can specify any copyright information for all of the labels or for each label separately.
> I'd really like to have this information specified in the metadata section
alright with me, Susanne, as long as all the three requirements from my last comments can be met and as long as it is simple enough for authors.
Thanx indeed for taking this issue so serious.
I tried out your changes to the schema but they dont work correctly yet. I did add the labelRef attribute with the value "blabla" to a multimedia element and added to the metadata section the following statement:
<contentCopyrights>
<copyrightStatement labelRef="blabla">This is a test</copyrightStatement>
</contentCopyrights>
But the schema complains that the lesson is not valid. Can you have a look at it?
I am sorry, it is correct. My mistake. I had to add the "label" attribute with the value "blabla" to the multimedia element and then it worked. Sorry about that.
Now how should I implement the online and print version of this???
Von Christian:
Ich kann glaube ich keine qualifizierte Antwort auf deine Frage geben. Nur so viel, dass der Autor bei einer Transformation wählen kann zwischen mindestens
1) Publikation mit allen Objekten (Print und HTML)
2) Publikation unter restringierten Umständen - hier werden Bilder durch einen Default-Text ersetzt. (HTML)
@Susanne: Um das zu realisieren müssten wir in den Metadaten Werte vorgeben... Oder wie siehst Du das?
We could do it like for other attributes such as cssStyles etc. The enumeration values could be defined in the validate.xsd file (for each project). As a standard we could define two values e.g. 'all' and 'restricted' and implement these two. If projects add additional values, then they have to implement it themselves.
However, for this concepts we wouldn't need such a complex structure of elements etc. that we have now. That could be done by one simple attribute for e.g. the multimedia element... we talked once about three new attributes... ?